I would ask if this doesn't personally pertain to you - keep your snotty nose comments to yourself.....

http://www.military.com/military-rep...SRC=miltrep.nl

Proposed DoD Budget Hits Military Retirees and Families
Retirees Asked to Cough Up $13 Billion Over Five Years

http://www.capwiz.com/military/issue...004936&type=ML

http://www.military.com/military-rep...SRC=miltrep.nl

Proposed DoD Budget Hits Military Retirees and Families
Retirees Asked to Cough Up $13 Billion Over Five Years

http://www.capwiz.com/military/issue...004936&type=ML Originally Posted by dennisrn

AWWW DENNY, WUZ DA MATTER BUMPKINS?? DO I PISS ON YOUR PARADE TOO MUCH????

Hey denny, remember this?

"...and as I have posted before in other areas - this is the nicest thing I see on eccie at times:

This message is hidden because 1NEMESIS is on your ignore list.

and I am so pleased to see this thread from a very nice young lady - and now some of you are seeing why I have always said she is definitely on my Top Shelf and a wonderful friend!!..
__________________

See boys and girls, denny likes to tell everyone to use their ignore button on my comments so this is a little payback. If you want to ignore him here is the ignore button for you:
http://http://www.eccie.net/profile.php?do=ignorelist

I personally don't ignore denny cuz' he's special in my book and I understand, it's hard to be denny…..LMAO!! Now don't get your chones in a bunch, I'm only funnin'

Either stick to the topic of the thread or stay out of the thread. I will not ask again.

Having just retired from active duty a few years ago, the legislation isn't surprising.

Entitlements are really being scrutinized and the American taxpayer can't afford the cost of continuing "business as usual" when it comes to the military pension and benefits for retirees and their families.

It also wouldn't be surprising to see more legislation extending the career of an active duty member to 30+ years before they are eligible for retirement, just like most places in the public sector. I'm sure the active duty will also be asked to contribute toward their retirement just like everyone else is asked to so there's an equitable cost-sharing.

Right now, premiums for TRI-CARE are ridiculously low and there are so many other benefits for retired active duty the public isn't aware of that have skyrocketed entitlements to a level beyond sustainment.

I think a "grandfather" clause (as of a certain date) would be more honorable and accepting by the overall military community. They are aware of our economic imbalance. I think we all agree the Federal Government is spending too much and everything needs to be looked at as long as it's looked at bipartisan.

My .02, kind sir.

Nj

thank you for your serious thoughts Nj

the gov keeps cutting away at military benefits yet i don't see this happening to other government jobs. seems like government employees continue to enjoy great benefits and congress doesn't seem to go after cutting their benefits.

do you know congress has passed a bill that allows children of congressional staffers to not have to pay back their government student loans? Talk about losing touch with the american people.

You're welcome, Dennis!

SATx = you open up a whole different can of worms when it comes to federal employees but you're spot on!

I can understand the need to make cuts, but to enforce it on veterans's who EARNED these benefits and are already retired is wrong.

To make FUTURE retired military (and realistically ALL Federal employees) fall under these new rules is reasonable. (And yes, it would affect me, as I did not retire yet).

Retiring after 20 years at age 38, or even 30 years at 48, is just not reasonable, especially with the life expectancy in the 80's.

I expect the government employees (local, state, and federal) to have 401K type plans in leiu of pensions somewhere in the future, just like private business is doing.

Wow. I read that they (the government) was gearing towards this. I just didn't expect it so soon. It makes me glad that I got out when I did. I would have been nearing twenty years in three more (years) if I would have remained on service. My heart goes out to those of you that decided to stay in long enough to retire.

Here's an example for ya, my mother told me a few days ago that she picked up a script that cost 12.50 last month and was 75.00 this month. That's with tri care... incredible!

November can't get here soon enough.

I hope not, but I have the feeling that he will be reelected.

Don't know about that JJ. If I were to bet on it I'd say it all hinges on that unemployment number and how disenchanted young people are with the POTUS.

As to the original posting by dennisrn, I think nissanjay hit it on the head. All entitlements, military or otherwise, have come under scrutiny due to the increased focus on the deficit, so it makes sense that a Democrat POTUS would put military cuts on the chopping block. Obviously, a Republican wouldn't dare touch that regardless of all the recent anti-federal spending rhetoric.

My question is: How did we ever get on this deficit-focused train in the first place? Clearly the U.S. has enough tax revenue to cover its interest payments. And our debt to GDP ratio is nowhere close to Greece's, Italy's, or Portugal's.

I would think unemployment, short term economic growth, and the housing crises would take precedence. Oi, but what do I know? I'm just a lonely snake...

Don't know about that JJ. If I were to bet on it I'd say it all hinges on that unemployment number and how disenchanted young people are with the POTUS.

As to the original posting by dennisrn, I think nissanjay hit it on the head. All entitlements, military or otherwise, have come under scrutiny due to the increased focus on the deficit, so it makes sense that a Democrat POTUS would put military cuts on the chopping block. Obviously, a Republican wouldn't dare touch that regardless of all the recent anti-federal spending rhetoric.

My question is: How did we ever get on this deficit-focused train in the first place? Clearly the U.S. has enough tax revenue to cover its interest payments. And our debt to GDP ratio is nowhere close to Greece's, Italy's, or Portugal's.

I would think unemployment, short term economic growth, and the housing crises would take precedence. Oi, but what do I know? I'm just a lonely snake... Originally Posted by snake_tony

"My question is: How did we ever get on this deficit-focused train in the first place? Clearly the U.S. has enough tax revenue to cover its interest payments. And our debt to GDP ratio is nowhere close to Greece's, Italy's, or Portugal's.

I would think unemployment, short term economic growth, and the housing crises would take precedence. Oi, but what do I know? I'm just a lonely snake…"[/QUOTE]

You know a hell of a lot more than most people to recognize that the deficit has nothing to do with the short term economic crisis, but alas, enter the republican propaganda machine and Obama and the Democrats inability to communicate in a simplistic, bumper sticker slogan manner to the understanding of the unwashed masses and there you have it, a perfect vehicle for republicans to introduce drastic austerity measures as the solution and delay economic recovery long enough to defeat Obama.

While military benefits should be reviewed just like any other government program I hope people keep two things in mind. The first is that only people that put in the full 20 years get them and the second is that it is the only job where you can be ordered to do things that have a high likelihood that you will be killed or severely injured. That level of risk deserves a greater compensation than most jobs.